5 risks employers face when paying less than $35 per job application for healthcare roles

When employers in the healthcare industry pay less than the standard $35 per application, they face significant risks in attracting underqualified or unsuitable candidates. Healthcare roles require specific credentials, experience, and a commitment to patient care, which makes candidate quality critical. Cheaper job boards or ad platforms may not have the reach or ability to attract applicants with the necessary medical qualifications or relevant experience. As a result, hiring managers may find themselves overwhelmed with unqualified applications, forcing them to spend more time on screening and prolonging the hiring process, ultimately reducing operational efficiency.

In addition, underpaying for healthcare applications can lead to distorted recruitment metrics. Low-cost platforms may drive traffic from unreliable sources, generating a high volume of applications that appear promising on the surface but fail to meet the rigorous standards required in healthcare. This can also open the door to fraudulent or bot-driven applications, further skewing the results. For employers in healthcare, where hiring skilled professionals is not just a matter of efficiency but of patient safety and care quality, cutting corners on application costs can have severe consequences. The long-term impact on staffing levels, patient outcomes, and regulatory compliance can far outweigh the short-term savings from paying below the market rate.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a healthcare job is $35. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a fraction of the going rate to a vendor for these leads? Here is what five thought leaders have to say.

• Risks of Low-Cost Healthcare Leads
• Quality Concerns with Cheap Applicant Leads
• Reputation Damage from Low-Quality Hires
• Compromised Candidate Quality in Healthcare
• Cutting Corners Can Increase Turnover

Risks of Low-Cost Healthcare Leads

I firmly believe opting for cheaper job leads, especially in healthcare, can bring several risks. Lower-cost leads often come from unreliable sources and may not have been thoroughly vetted. This means you might attract less-qualified candidates or those not a good fit for the role or company culture. I have experienced it in the past, where cheap job ads led to higher turnover rates, additional effort, and costs to find and screen suitable candidates.

Cheaper leads can also impact data quality. Vendors offering lower prices might use outdated or incomplete databases, which can result in inaccuracies and lead to more time spent correcting errors. This can affect the efficiency of your hiring process and create unnecessary complications.

Relying on lower-cost leads can undermine your overall recruitment strategy. High-quality candidates are often reached through well-targeted and well-funded channels. By opting for budget options, you risk missing out on top talent who might be found through more premium avenues. Over time, this can affect your hiring success and overall organizational performance, as you’re not attracting the best candidates for your roles. Balancing cost with quality is crucial to avoid these pitfalls and ensure a more effective and efficient hiring process.

Shawn Davidson, Healthcare Consultant, OSP

Quality Concerns with Cheap Applicant Leads

Employers who opt for cheaper options in securing job applicants, such as paying a fraction of the standard $35 fee for healthcare applications, may face risks in the quality of candidates. Cheaper leads often result in lower engagement and can attract less qualified candidates, leading to prolonged recruitment processes and dissatisfaction. 

This practice might also reflect poorly on the company’s brand, as potential employees may perceive the organization as undervaluing skill sets, which can exacerbate existing stresses and constraints faced by high-achievers in their career paths. It’s crucial to prioritize quality in the recruitment process to ensure a healthy, effective work environment that supports and elevates its employees.

Kristie Tse, Founder & Therapist, Uncover Mental Health Counseling

Reputation Damage from Low-Quality Hires

I would mention that continuously sourcing low-quality candidates can negatively affect the company’s reputation, leading to negative word-of-mouth among job seekers. This can make it challenging to attract top talent in the future, as candidates may not want to associate with a company known for hiring subpar employees. In the healthcare industry, hiring lower-quality leads can significantly damage the company’s image and trustworthiness, as professionalism and competency are paramount.

You see, unqualified candidates may require additional training once hired, adding unexpected expenses and delaying productivity. This can be particularly problematic in the healthcare field, where lives are at stake. Hiring budget leads may result in hiring individuals who lack the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their duties effectively, putting patients’ safety and well-being at risk.

I have witnessed many times that budget vendors use unethical or illegal practices to source candidates, such as exaggerating job requirements or misleading applicants about the role and its responsibilities, especially for sensitive roles in healthcare, such as doctors or nurses. This can result in lawsuits and legal issues for the company, damaging its reputation and financial stability. Employers must be careful when choosing a vendor for healthcare roles to ensure ethical practices are followed.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Compromised Candidate Quality in Healthcare

If an employer is paying significantly less than the standard cost per application for healthcare job leads, they are likely compromising on the quality of candidates they’re attracting. In healthcare, where precision, trust, and expertise are paramount, sourcing candidates through cheaper channels means receiving applications that may not meet the required qualifications or standards. This can lead to wasting time sifting through irrelevant applications, which is frustrating and inefficient.

The risk goes beyond time. There’s also the concern that these lower-cost vendors might not screen candidates thoroughly. When it comes to healthcare, verifying credentials, licenses, and relevant experience is essential. If this process is skipped or inadequately managed, employers could end up hiring someone who lacks the necessary qualifications, putting patients and the organization at risk. It’s not just about hiring someone to fill a role; it’s about ensuring they have the skills and integrity to provide care.

Furthermore, cheaper vendors may not have access to the best talent pools. Healthcare professionals often gravitate towards reputable platforms where they know they’ll be connected with high-quality employers. Paying less might mean these candidates aren’t even seeing the job posting, leading to a smaller, less qualified pool of applicants.

Maria Knobel, Medical Director, Medical Cert UK

Cutting Corners Can Increase Turnover

While it’s tempting to cut corners on recruitment costs, we’ve seen time and again how this backfires. Cheaper leads often result in a flood of unqualified applicants, wasting valuable time and resources in the screening process. There’s also a higher risk of cultural misfit, which can lead to increased turnover and decreased team morale. We’ve helped clients achieve a 30% reduction in turnover by focusing on quality over quantity in their hiring process.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC